Proper classification and bale selection are prerequisites to success in a modern cotton spinning operation. Currently, for crops where automatic High Volume Instrument (HVI) classification is the norm, fiber selection is done based on HVI data which does not include adequate characterization of fiber length distribution. This research evaluates the effectiveness of current cotton fiber classification and selection procedures in controlling for variability in fiber length distribution and presents a new approach to adequately clustering cotton bales into homogenous groups based on empirical length distributions. The results show that using the common HVI parameters to group the bales produces categories with uncontrolled length distribution variability. Differences in distribution patterns appeared related to the potential for bales with the same micronaire levels to differ significantly in maturity and thus in propensity to break.
Clouvel P et al. Variability of Cotton Fiber Quality. In: 2nd world cotton research conference – new frontiers in cotton research. Athens, Greece, 1998, International Cotton Advisory Committee.
2.
DavidonisGH. The cotton fiber property variability continuum from motes through seeds. Textile Res J1999; 69(10): 754–759.
Lord E. The characteristics of raw cotton. In: Coulson AFW and Tordoff M (eds) Manual of cotton spinning. Vol 2 Part 1. Manchester (GB): The Textile Institute and Butterworth & Co. 1961, pp.xii+333.
5.
Earnest DW. Advancements in USDA cotton classing facilities. In: Beltwide Cotton Conferences. Nashville, TN, 1996. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.
6.
El MogahzyYEFiber-to-fabric engineering: optimization of cotton fiber quality. In: BasraAS (ed.) Cotton fibers: Developmental biology, quality improvement, and textile processing. New York: The Haworth Press, 1999339–376.
7.
Chewning C, Zeplin J and Vodicka S. EFS® Cotton Fiber Management System GINNet. In: Beltwide Cotton Conferences. San Diego, CA, 1994. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.
8.
Yancy CHJ. More US cotton going to overseas mills. Southeast Farm Press 2003; 1.
9.
Lewis HL. High volume instrument classing: The key to cotton quality and competitiveness. In: Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conferences. Nashville, TN, 1989. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.
10.
El MogahzyYE. Optimizing cotton blend costs with respect to quality using HVI fiber properties and linear programming Part 1: Fundamentals and advanced techniques of linear programming. Textile Res J1992; 62(1): 1–8.
11.
El MogahzyYEGowayedY. Theory and practice of cotton fiber selection – Part 1: Fiber selection techniques and bale picking algorithms. Textile Res J1995; 65(1): 32–40.
12.
KangB. A simplified optimization in cotton bale selection and laydown. Fibers Polym2000; 1(1): 55–58.
13.
El MogahzyY. An integrated approach to analyzing the nature of multicomponent fiber blending – Part I: Analytical aspects. Textile Res J2004; 74(8): 701–712.
14.
Hunter L. Worldwide trends in cotton fiber testing. In: Beltwide Cotton Conferences. New Orleans, LA, 1997. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.
15.
El MogahzyYEBroughtonRLynchWK. Statistical approach to determining the technological value of cotton using High Volume Instrument fiber properties. Textile Res J1990; 60(9): 495–500.
16.
Militky J. Quantification of cotton fiber quality. In: Beltwide Cotton Conferences – Cotton Quality Measurements. San Antonio, TX, 2006. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.
17.
Uster Technologies AG. Introduction to Uster® Statistics. 2006.
18.
DavidonisGLandivarJFernandezC. Effects of growth environment on cotton fiber properties and motes neps and white speck frequency. Textile Res J2003; 73(11): 960–964.
19.
KrifaM. Fiber length distribution in cotton processing: dominant features and interaction effects. Textile Res J2006; 76(5): 426–435.
20.
ZeidmanMIBatraSKSasserPE. Determining short fiber content (SFC) in cotton. Part 1. Some theoretical considerations. Textile Res J1991; 61(1): 21–30.
21.
Uster Technologies AG. Uster® AFIS PRO – What does the data mean? Uster, Switzerland. 2004, p.13.
22.
BraggCKShofnerFM. A rapid, direct measurement of short fiber content. Textile Res J1993; 63(3): 171–176.
23.
Ethridge D and Krifa M. Renewed focus on short fibers. Textile Topics 2004; 3-Summer 2004: 1–8.
24.
KrifaM. Fiber length distribution in cotton processing: a finite mixture distribution model. Textile Res J2008; 78(8): 688–698.
25.
El MogahzyYEGowayedY. Theory and practice of cotton fiber selection – Part 2: Sources of cotton mix variability and critical factors affecting it. Textile Res J1995; 65(2): 75–84.
26.
Hequet E and Ethridge D. Monitoring and control of the AFIS instrument. Textile Topics 2000; 3–Fall 2000: 2–8.
